Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the exact return fields and noting that BFE is included 'if applicable,' but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like geocoding failure handling, data vintage, or coverage limitations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and enumerates the key return fields without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the outputs well, which matters because there is no output schema. However, it leaves the input model underspecified: an agent must infer that location is for addresses and lat/lon are for coordinates, and there is no guidance about required vs optional inputs or mutual exclusivity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description needed to explain the parameters, but it does not clarify how lat, lon, and location relate to each other, whether they are alternatives, or what coordinate format is expected. It only loosely maps to 'address or coordinate' without giving enough detail for an agent to confidently choose the right inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: looking up FEMA flood zone designations for an address or coordinate, and it lists specific outputs. It is distinct enough in subject matter from siblings like nfip_flood_claims or geocode_address, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from any sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies it should be used when flood zone information is needed, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over related alternatives such as nfip_flood_claims, property_lookup, or location_risk_report. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.